TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (5) TMI 158
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lector of Central Excise, Eluru. 2. Facts, as stated in the appeal memo are briefly summarised as under: 3. The respondents are manufacturers of 'Agarbathies' falling under Item No. 68 of the erstwhile First Schedule of the Act (now classified under Heading 3308.10) attracting nil rate of duty. The respondents have been manufacturing the product without the aid of power and they contended that as it is 'hand-made', it is 'handicraft' coming within the purview of exemption Notification No. 234/82-C.E., dated 1-11-1982. So, they have not taken out central excise licence or filed classification list contending that they are exempt from this procedure under Notification No. 179/77-C.E., dated 18-6-1977. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not there. So, the only question that arises, whether 'agarbathies' would be covered under heading 'Handicrafts' at Sl. No. 9 of the notification. In Padmini Products case (supra), the production, in question, was not "agarbathies" but "dhoop sticks" and so the said judgment is distinguishable and it is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In Mysore Agarbathi Works v. UOI -1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 196) (A.P.), this issue has been decided and as no appeal has been preferred against that order, this has become final. He also cited Arva Cabinet House v. C.C.E. -1989 (44) E.L.T. 785 (Tri.). 7. In reply, the ld. S.D.R. submitted that Mysore Agarbathi Works case (supra) is distinguishable because therein the process involved is "hand wor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....andicrafts only. We observe that even though Agarbaties and Dhoop have been considered to be product alike in view of the end-use and the ingredient used, the two are commercially known as separate things. When a person goes to the market to buy Agarbatties, dhoop is not offered in its place and vice versa. Nowhere it has been stated nor any evidence has been produced before us that Agarbatties and dhoops are manufactured by the same process. These occur in different forms. It is not also the plea of the appellants that the Agarbatties are given their essential shape by use of power as in the case of the appellants' product and yet the same have been considered by any authority as handicrafts." 10. Again in para 7, it has been stated as un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4/75-C.E., dated 30-4-1975. This notification is an amending notification whereby Notification No. 55/75-C.E., dated 1-3-1975 was amended and some more items were added to the list of beneficiaries. By Notification No. 55/75-C.E., the Government exempted goods of the description specified therein and falling under Item No. 68 of the First Schedule of the Act (as was in existence at the relevant time) from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon. 13. Here, we are concerned with Notification No. 234/82-C.E., dated 1-11-1982 which was issued in supersession of Notification No. 104/82-C.E., dated 28-2-1982. Notification No. 104/82-C.E. superseded Notification No. 55/75 and by Notification No. 104/82-C.E., several products falling unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ast between the facts relating to M/s. Mysore Agarbathi Works, Secunderabad and those of M/s. Ambica Chemical Products, Eluru, in regard to manufacturing operations. As the relevant facts of both the units are identical I find no reason to differentiate M/s. Ambica Chemical Products, Eluru from M/s. Mysore Agarbathi Works, Secunderabad. I also observed that Notification No. 234/82 has not been modified in any manner after the issue of the Notification No. 53/84-C.E., dated 1-3-1984 and it follows that the units which were eligible to exemption prior to 1-3-1984 under the said notification would continue to enjoy the exemption even after the issue of the Notification No. 53/84, dated 1-3-1984, in case where the judgment of Andhra Pradesh Hig....